But What About Abortion and Stem Cell Research?

Generally, I'm conservative (if you haven't gotten that yet). But most of my conservatism is fiscal in nature. I am opposed to higher taxes and higher government spending, and I'm in favor of capitalism and free markets. I believe the principles of limited government powers and freedom of the individual is what makes this country great. The more power we give government in terms of increased money, programs and regulations, the less freedom the individual will have, and the less chance capitalism will have to survive.

But how exactly do conservative principles apply to social policies, and specifically abortion and stem cell research. Traditionally, conservatives are strongly opposed to abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells for research. Their reasons for this opposition are rooted in their strong religious beliefs and their definitions of human life. Their first premise is that human life begins at the moment of conception. Secondly, they say that it is always morally wrong to take a human life, regardless of how old or young it is. That's it. That's really the bottom line. If we assume those two points to be true, then their argument is correct...abortion and stem cell research should both be illegal.

However, this is where I differ slightly from the traditional conservative. As a physician, I agree that human life begins at conception. No educated person in the medical sciences could possibly argue that this is NOT a true statement. However, I question whether it is always morally wrong to take a human life, regardless of age. From a moral point of view, when it is the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the embryo, there is an intelligent argument which states that since the embryo is completely dependent on the mother for continued growth and development, then her rights outweigh those of the embryo. The problem with this argument is where to draw the line. Can't you also argue that an infant is completely dependent on the mother as well? What about a toddler? What about a teenager? Well, obviously, as the child grows, they gradually become less and less dependent. But how do we decide where to draw the line? Brain development? Well, that is actually a continuous process. It is not something that occurs overnight.

The "pro-life" crowd sees the slippery slope problem with this. If we allow abortion, then what's next? Are they going to start allowing the killing of infants at the mother's discretion? After all, is that really any different? In fact, there are some liberal "intellectuals" out there who think this is a good idea, namely Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University. And if that becomes okay, can't the government come in and then say it's okay to kill children up to age 4 or 5, when most experts believe that a child is actually able to reason.

Well, obviously, these questions are more serious than just "I'M PRO-CHOICE!" or "I'M PRO-LIFE!" People who are steadfast in their beliefs on this issue, without at least considering the other side of the argument, are stupid in my opinion. You need to at least see the reasoning behind the alternative argument. The problem is that it's a stale-mate. There's simply no answer we're all ever going to agree on, and that's because people have different codes of ethics based on their moral upbringing.

This is why, while I personally am pro-choice and in favor of stem cell research, I don't believe I can summarily say that what's right for me is right for the nation. I also believe that the foundations of Judeo-Christian laws are what this country's laws and morals are based on, so I don't really have a problem with religious zealots setting the rules here. After all, it's their morals that have prevented total anarchy for the past 233 years, and I don't have a good enough REASON to argue that I'm right and they're wrong...since they are right about the human life part of it. Besides, while this an interesting debate, and while I would like my daughter to be able to have an abortion at some point if she really needed it, I don't really care too much one way or the other.

The importance of free markets, capitalism and limited government are FAR more important to me than any of this. Government's role is to defend our borders and uphold the law. If the law is that abortion is illegal, well, so be it. It got us through the first 200 years of our history. But if government comes in and starts firing CEOs, pandering to unions, manipulating markets, and generally screwing up our entire economic system...well, that will have much more serious consequences for ALL OF US then if my daughter is forced to have a baby when she's a teenager.